Receivability

Showing 11 - 15 of 15

2012-罌厭弝ⅰAT-223, Rawat

29 Jun 2012

罌厭弝ⅰAT considered the appeal, in which the Secretary-General requested that 罌厭弝ⅰAT consider the appeal receivable and find that 罌厭弝ⅰDT exceeded its competence in ordering a suspension of action on the decision not to extend Mr Rawat＊s appointment. 罌厭弝ⅰAT noted that, in imminently executing the administrative order, 罌厭弝ⅰDT failed to comply with the five-working-day limit, set forth in Villamoran (2011-罌厭弝ⅰAT-160), without giving any reasons for doing so and thus, clearly exceeded its competence. 罌厭弝ⅰAT consequently held that the appeal against the contested order was receivable and founded. 罌厭弝ⅰAT rescinded...

2013-罌厭弝ⅰAT-314, Mpacko

28 Mar 2013

罌厭弝ⅰAT held that Ms Mpacko＊s claims addressed the merits of the 罌厭弝ⅰDT decision and did not amount to claims that the 罌厭弝ⅰDT exceeded its competence or jurisdiction in denying her application for suspension of action. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that 罌厭弝ⅰDT did not exceed its competence or jurisdiction in denying Ms Mpacko＊s application for suspension of action. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that the appeal was not receivable.

2014-罌厭弝ⅰAT-423, Bastet

2 Apr 2014

罌厭弝ⅰAT considered three appeals by Mr Bastet against Order No. 96 (NY/2013), Order No. 58 (GVA/2013)), and Order No. 160 (GVA/2013). Regarding 罌厭弝ⅰDT Order No. 96 (NY/2013), 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that the decision to transfer the Appellant＊s case to Geneva fell squarely within the jurisdiction and competence of 罌厭弝ⅰDT. Regarding the second complaint, namely that 罌厭弝ⅰDT exceeded its competence and/or erred in law, fact, or procedure in restricting disclosure of documents and witnesses, 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that to order, or not to order certain documents also fell within the discretion of 罌厭弝ⅰDT. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that the Appellant...

2020-罌厭弝ⅰAT-1058, Nadeau

30 Oct 2020

罌厭弝ⅰAT considered an appeal by Mr Nadeau of Order No. 184 and his request that both Order Nos. 184 and 169 be rescinded. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that he did not demonstrate that 罌厭弝ⅰDT had clearly exceeded its jurisdiction or competence in rejecting his request for new documents to be introduced into evidence. 罌厭弝ⅰAT noted that the issue could be raised on appeal against the final judgment on the merits. 罌厭弝ⅰAT is competent to review whether certain facts remained unresolved at the 罌厭弝ⅰDT level and to consider the need for factual determinations based on the whole of the relevant evidence. 罌厭弝ⅰAT dismissed the appeal.

2021-罌厭弝ⅰAT-1160, Asr Ahmed Toson

29 Oct 2021

On the request for the oral hearing, 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that the matter could be considered just as well on written submissions and that it was not persuaded that an oral hearing was necessary in the interests of justice. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that the Appellant＊s complaints were about the content of the orders made, not about whether 罌厭弝ⅰDT was empowered to make such orders, and as such, his appeal was not receivable and had to be dismissed. Noting that the case would be dismissed, 罌厭弝ⅰAT made the following observations on the merits of the appeal: (1) 罌厭弝ⅰDT was entitled to determine issues of receivability in...